Rewis v. United States, No. 25625
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | TUTTLE, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit |
| Citation | 418 F.2d 1218 |
| Parties | James Wintfored REWIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Mary Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Robert Lee FULLER, Sr., and Oliver Louis Nightengale, Sr., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 25625,25631.,25919 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1969 |
418 F.2d 1218 (1969)
James Wintfored REWIS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Mary Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Robert Lee FULLER, Sr., and Oliver Louis Nightengale, Sr., Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 25625, 25919, 25631.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
December 5, 1969.
As Amended December 24, 1969.
Samuel S. Jacobson, and Eugene Loftin, Datz & Jacobson, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.
Joseph W. Hatchett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Milton J. Carp, Charles Ruff, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., for appellees.
Before TUTTLE, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.
TUTTLE, Circuit Judge:
This is a consolidated appeal from three separate convictions in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The appellants were tried before a jury and convicted on various
The appellants, James Rewis, Mary Lee Williams, Robert Lee Fuller and Oliver Nightengale, were indicted with seven other defendants in connection with an alleged numbers operation, which, without dispute, was being conducted at the home of Mary Lee Williams in the town of Yulee, Florida, a small community approximately fifteen miles south of the Georgia-Florida state line. Judgment of acquittal was entered by the trial court as to four defendants and the jury thereafter acquitted two other defendants, but returned guilty verdicts against all of the appellants on various counts of violating this section of the Federal Criminal Code. The government argues that Rewis was the leader of the operation which was being conducted at Mary Lee Williams' home and that the other appellants, Fuller and Nightengale, were connected with the operation as workers or as players. Only Rewis and Williams were Florida residents. Fuller, Nightengale and the other acquitted defendants were Georgia residents. The government's theory was that Fuller and Nightengale actually travelled in interstate commerce with the intent to violate the Florida statute, Section 849.09, F.S.A. outlawing the promoting or conducting of any lottery; that they would be guilty whether they used these interstate facilities for the purpose of coming into Florida and placing bets themselves at the Williams' residence, or were acting as employees of Williams and/or Rewis in the conduct of the operation. The government contends that in either event they would be guilty of the substantive counts for which they were convicted, even though they were both acquitted of the conspiracy count.
The government further contends that whether or not Fuller and Nightengale were proved to have been co-conspirators, nevertheless the conspiracy and substantive charges against Rewis and Williams would stand, because they were shown by ample evidence to have caused Fuller and Nightengale, as well as other unnamed or named travelers from Georgia to patronize the establishment for gambling purposes.
The case against Fuller and Nightengale is very thin, indeed, if it must, as we think it does, depend upon a showing that they were other than bettors themselves.
Whether the reading of the federal statute be casual or intense, it appears that it is not aimed at making a federal crime out of a person's crossing a state line for the purpose of placing a bet, if the placing of such a bet is a crime in the state which he enters. If appellants Fuller and Nightengale are to come within the coverage of Section 1952(a) (3), it would require a broad interpretation of "carry on" or "facilitate." The language of the statute appears clearly to be aimed at those things or people who aid, help or assist the promotion
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaldson v. United States, No. 65
...his tax liability that is the subject of the summons. Instead, we agree with the opposing conclusion reached by the Fifth Circuit here, 418 F.2d at 1218, and in In re Cole, 342 F.2d 5, 7—8 (CA2), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 950, 85 S.Ct. 1803, 14 L.Ed.2d 723 (1965), and O'Donnell v. Sullivan, 36......
-
United States v. Roselli, 24220
...87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, p. 2666. See United States v. Brennan, 394 F.2d 151, 153 (2d Cir. 1968). See also Rewis v. United States, 418 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir. 1969), where the court reversed the convictions of two defendants who did nothing more than cross a state line to place bets but aff......
-
U.S. v. Perrin, 76-3926
...that the interstate travel or the use of interstate facilities makes easier or facilitates the unlawful activity. Rewis v. United States, 418 F.2d 1218, 1221 (5 Cir. 1969), Reversed on other grounds, 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971); United States v. Miller, 379 F.2d 483, ......
-
U.S. v. Villano, s. 74--1463
...been construed not to apply to others where the proof showed only that they traveled into a State to place bets, Rewis v. United States, 418 F.2d 1218, 1220--21 (5th Cir.) (the holding of the Fifth Circuit on the Georgia residents). 9 And the Rewis opinion of the Supreme Court held that the......